Or, how many are too many?
In another thread, someone mentioned "25+ classes that can not be done pathfinder (Not OGL)".

I sort of like the fact that there's no longer the factor of a player spending $$ on a new 3E supplement (from WotC, anyhow) in anticipation of using this or that in a game ... when I as DM would be disinclined to risk even a mild case of splat-itis. I have just the basic three volumes, and that's burden enough for me.
At some point, I think proliferation raises questions as to the point of using a class system in the first place if the classes are not "archetypal" and flexible enough to accommodate an appropriately wide variety of characters.
Although for D&D I could happily get by with just two types -- warriors and magicians -- I recognize that this is an eccentric view!
So, if I were to start up a 3E or Pathfinder game, what would generally be considered an adequate selection of classes?
In another thread, someone mentioned "25+ classes that can not be done pathfinder (Not OGL)".

I sort of like the fact that there's no longer the factor of a player spending $$ on a new 3E supplement (from WotC, anyhow) in anticipation of using this or that in a game ... when I as DM would be disinclined to risk even a mild case of splat-itis. I have just the basic three volumes, and that's burden enough for me.
At some point, I think proliferation raises questions as to the point of using a class system in the first place if the classes are not "archetypal" and flexible enough to accommodate an appropriately wide variety of characters.
Although for D&D I could happily get by with just two types -- warriors and magicians -- I recognize that this is an eccentric view!
So, if I were to start up a 3E or Pathfinder game, what would generally be considered an adequate selection of classes?
Last edited: